Posted on 09/11/2004 6:35:23 AM PDT by Land of the Irish
Ping
"As long as they accept the Pope and the authenticity of New Mass , there should not be problem."
Why should they have to accept the new mass?
| My beloved ones, avoid idolatry. I am speaking as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I am saying. The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the Blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the Body of Christ? Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one Body, for we all partake of the one loaf. |
Bwah, ha, ha ha. His Emminence would be a good Freeper. Pettifogging. LOL
This type of thing must be standard operating procedure, strictly adhered to and practiced by the modernist hierarchy.
Too bad Fr. Somerville is now dealing with the mess that he helped put in motion - hope that fact will eventually give him the upper hand. What a mess.
What!?
Traditional Catholicism rejects that kind of touchy feely sentiment. It can't possibly be doctrinal. :o)
"For the same reason that one must accept the Most Holy Trinity."
There is no equivalence between the doctrine of the Trinity and a decision by one group priests to suppress the Mass of the ages and substitute an inferior rite, born of their secular leftism.
Because it is the Mass that matters. If they accept the new mass, that will amount to a defeat of sspx and a victory for the novus ordo.
Good old SSPX have situated themselves right in plain view and are a giant thorn in the sides of the modernists
I would imagine most of everything is hard to take. That's why they have to read the Remnant and Cath. Family News. It's a tiny little universe they live in.
Oh brother. Most Catholics are oblivious to the existence of the SSPX. They are merely a pettifogging annoyance to some heirarchs. Nothing more. Unless they accept the generous and highly acceptable conditions as laid out by those to whom they claim fealty to they will go the way of their predecessors, the "pure-minded" Donatists. Meanwhile Traditional Catholicism will survive and thrive in union with the Holy Pontiff.
Because if you do not accept the New Mass then you do not accept the Church that sanctions it.
If you do not accept the Church that sanctions it then the basis for accepting everything else sanctioned by the Church has no basis, such as, the line of succession, the Trinity, previous Church Councils, and the Bible.
It is true, as you indicate, that the orbis terrarum Catholic majority accepts the new Catholic order of things. But not by informed judgment (securus judicat).
We Novus Ordo types are just straw-chewin', gap-toothed dupes to the anointed.
Somerville says he "got religion" when he went to Houston, no doubt to hang out with another grandstander, Zigrang.
I have to laugh at Somerville when he laments that this became "public" because Matt published his letters.
What did he expect? Matt thrives on confrontation and this is just the kind of juice he needs for his online rag.
It appears that Somerville has chosen the SSPX. Rome's not going to touch this with a ten-foot pole.
How on earth will he have an upper hand? He thumbs his nose at his bishop, hands over all of their correspondence to a two-bit journalist in an attempt to show up the Cardinal, then acts like it's the Cardinal's fault when he comes back with five conditions for Somerville's return?
Castrillon de Hoyos is going to tell Somerville to honor those five requests from his bishop or stay exactly where he is.
His appeal to a motion picture as justification for disobeying his bishop is one of the biggest howlers I've ever read.
My beloved ones, avoid idolatry.
I am speaking as to sensible people;
judge for yourselves what I am saying.
The cup of blessing that we bless,
is it not a participation in the Blood of Christ?
The bread that we break,
is it not a participation in the Body of Christ?
Because the loaf of bread is one,
we, though many, are one Body,
for we all partake of the one loaf.
This is about more than just a dumbed-down eunuch of a Mass. Compare the above with the Douay:
14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, fly from the service of idols.
15 I speak as to wise men: judge ye yourselves what I say.
16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?
17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.
The differences may be subtle, but they are enormous nonetheless.
“Avoid idolatry?” How wimpy is that? Compare Paul’s robust, “Fly from the service of idols.”
“Sensible people?” Compare with, “I speak as to wise men.”
“The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the Blood of Christ?” Compare with “The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ.” Aside from the extremely lame phrasing of “blessing that we bless,” it obscures the meaning of the word “benediction” as “an invocation of divine blessing,” and leaves it looking like we are doing all the blessing.
And what the heck does “participation in the Blood of Christ” mean? “The communion of the blood of Christ” is entirely intelligible, and clearly communicates the concept of people individually receiving the blood of Christ.
And again, compare “participation in the Body of Christ” with “partaking of the body of the Lord.” What IS this “participation” craparoonie?
The rewrite of the last line is the most subtle, but also the most significant.
New: Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one Body, for we all partake of the one loaf.
Old: For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.
The Douay version says that all who receive communion are one bread, one body. What it DOES NOT say is that all who receive communion are one body because the loaf of bread is one—which, to be more charitable than is warranted, is complete gibberish.
All who receive the body of Christ are one body by virtue of Our Lord’s bitter Passion and Death, not because “the loaf of bread is one,” whatever that is supposed to mean.
The new version has US making ourselves one body through our own efforts in partaking of the one loaf. That’s a sentiment that Catholicism never embraced.
Clearly, this passage was rewritten to rob it of its intelligibility and power.
To endorse the NO is to endorse all of this as just hunky dory. Well, it’s not.
The divide in the Catholic Church between the NO progressives and those who revere tradition – conservatives – is an analogue of the secular cultural war. The NO advocates are Catholicism’s Democratic Party, and the traditionalists are the Church’s Reagan Republicans.
The Democratic Party has scum like Ted Kennedy and John Kerrey, and the Catholic Church has people like this bishop.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.